PayPal

Thursday, July 31, 2014

Gazan "journalists," news media,
and random individuals handy with cell phones are so proficient at taking
pictures of the victims of Israeli "aggression" that they ought to be
hired by Hollywood. At the drop of a drone, they're there to pass off
heartstring-pulling photos of dead Gazan children, who were not yet old enough
to throw rocks at Israeli civilian cars, or don suicide vests, or kidnap
Israeli soldiers or teenagers, or sneak into Israeli settlements to slaughter
whole families with razors and butchers knives, or riot in the West Bank.

Many of the photos they send West and which
are gobbled up by the news media also show weeping fathers cradling dead sons
in their arms, either in the street or in a doctor's office, or a bunch of guys
carrying a flag-draped casket purportedly holding the body of a dead child,
surrounded by an angry and fist-shaking weeping mob.

These on-the-spot recorders of Israeli
"atrocities" are the Muslim paparazzi of pity, Islam's
ambulance-chasing ghouls. The pictures they take are either staged,
filched or recycled
from other
theaters of Mideast conflicts, or too outrageously phony to be believed –
except by Western "journalists" and news editors, such as the one of
a boy leaping over the body bags of children supposedly and recently killed in
the Syrian Houla massacre by bombs or rubber bands, except that the bags
contain the
bones of people found in a desert near Bagdad. Broadcast by the BBC in 2012, the photo dates
to 2003.

"One of my
pictures from Iraq was used by the BBC web site as a front page illustration
claiming that those were the bodies of yesterday's massacre in Syria and that
the picture was sent by an activist. Instead
the picture was taken by me andit's on my web site, on the feature section regarding a
story I did In Iraq during the war called Iraq, the aftermath of Saddam.

“What I am really
astonished by is that a news organization like the BBC doesn't check the
sources and it's willing to publish any picture sent it by anyone: activist,
citizen journalist or whatever. That's all. "

Well, he shouldn't be so astonished. The
BBC, which has maintained an anti-Israel grudge for a long time, wouldn't
really be concerned about the strength of any attribution. When it comes to pushing propaganda, it has
never been too fastidious in checking sources. Fantasy and bias overrule facts.
We want this to be evidence of
Israeli brutality. The BBC isn't the only news outlet that's in a hurry to
condemn or indict Israel or dictators its editors don’t at the moment happen to
like. There is our own CPB or PBS – and MSNBC, and CNN, and ABC and CBS, and
NBC itself.Anything that will help
convey the idea that Muslims are always the victims of someone's policies or
Israeli cruelty.

Hamas, Al Queda, Fatah, Hezbollah, the
Muslim Brotherhood, and other blameless, "peace-loving" Islamic
outfits must also retain the services of Photoshopping experts to doctor
pictures for special propaganda purposes. Given half a chance, and if they
thought they could get away with it, their "unverified sources" for
photographs taken by Muslim "journalists," they would probably stoop
to passing off doctored pictures of the D-Day landings as waves of Muslims wade
ashore, attacking Israel from the Mediterranean, appropriately garbed with
keffiyahs and carrying Palestinian flags.

Muslims, and especially Gazans, after all,
are a peace-loving people more put upon than guilty or complicit in the
atrocities they commit on Jews and infidels. Aren't they?

Speaking of doctored images, Muslims also claim
to be victims of how they're portrayed in Western movies.

Even before 9/11, they were muttering to
themselves about the depiction of Muslims as grungy conspirators of mayhem in
the West and even in Islamic countries. They resented the standard portrayal of
dehumanized stereotypes.The Middle East
Quarterly carried a lengthy article by Daniel Mandel in the Spring 2001 issue,
"Muslims
on the Silver Screen."

Does Hollywood
dehumanize Muslims and Arabs? Many writers and organizations think so. They
assert that racial and ethnic stereotyping that has been otherwise abandoned by
the cinema continues to apply to these groups. Columnist Jay Stone, for
instance, observes that it "appears we're down to one group, the Arabs….Hala
Maksoud, president of the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee, in a
complaint to NBC regarding an episode of the television series, The West
Wing, asserts that "Arabs remain fair game for the entertainment
industry in this country."

The result has been
vigorous lobbying and public criticism to sensitize moviemakers to these
distortions, then stop them. Faced with a barrage of criticism, the powers that
be in Hollywood—who do not consider themselves qualified to test the validity
of these complaints—usually concede to their critics. For example, The Sum
of All Fears, a thriller by Tom Clancy, has as its villains a group of
Muslim terrorists who conspire to detonate a nuclear device at the Super Bowl
in Denver.

However, following
objections from the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the director
of the movie derived from the book, Phil Alden Robinson, substituted European
neo-Nazis for Muslims. Robinson explained in a letter addressed to CAIR that he
had "no intention of promoting negative images of Muslims or Arabs"
and went on the wish the group his "best" in its efforts to combat
discrimination. Evidently, the lobbying works.

The main complaints cited by Mandel in the
article are that Islamist violence is distorted,
that Islamist terrorism is invented,
and that Muslims and Arabs never appear in sympathetic
roles.

One question Mandel doesn't ask is: What
else are Muslims known for? It certainly isn't for winning Nobel Prizes in
physics or medicine. When was the last time a Muslim-authored novel hit the New
York Times bestseller list – aside from Salman Rushdie's? Where is the Muslim
counterpart of, say, Jerry Seinfeld or Dean Martin? How many Muslim women have
won the Miss World, Miss America, or Miss Universe beauty contest?

About the only time one hears about Muslims
is when they've blown themselves up somewhere, or blew up a lot of people, or
when they're attacking Israel, or when CAIR or some other Muslim advocacy group
whines about the derogatory, "profiling" image of Muslims in films,
and just general, noisy demonstrations against Israel or the U.S. If one walks like a duck, sounds like a duck,
and looks like a duck, where's the distortion?
If you behave like a yahoo, then you must be a yahoo. Ergo, stereotyping is
eminently justified.

The claim that Islamic terrorism carried
out by Muslims is "invented" is fantastically delusional and patently
false, not when the tally of Islamic terrorism since just 9/11 has reached 19,200. That tally doesn’t include the
thousands of acts of terrorism committed by Muslims before 9/11 (plane hijackings, bombs on planes,
massacres of foreigners such as the one Luxor in 1997, and so on).

What sympathies
do Muslims elicit from non-believers? I can't think of anything, except for a
vague disgust with them and their "religion," which is totalitarian
in character, nihilist in its essentials, and pathetic in practice, from the
prayer rituals to the dietary restrictions to the traditional garb.

Mandel also itemizes and discusses what
CAIR and other Muslim "advocacy" groups claim are the possible
motives behind Hollywood's negative portrayal of Muslims and Arabs: that Hollywood
is in sync with U.S. government policies; and that Hollywood furthers Zionist
policies. The first claim is also fantastic; the U.S. government has been
pro-Islam for decades, and Obama's blatant patronization of Islam is only the
latest manifestation of that policy. The second claim is linked to the first;
the U.S has for decades pressured Israel to surrender to Palestinian demands to
negotiate, negotiate, negotiate itself into Islam-managed oblivion.

Mandel discusses several movies that CAIR
and other Islamic complainants have focused on over the years: True Lies,
Executive Decision, The Siege, Three Kings, and Rules
of Engagement, and The Delta Force, and drills holes in each
complaint about those movies. He ends his essay with:

Other…criticisms do
not hold water. The depiction of Muslims and Arabs is variable and not
necessarily insensitive or untruthful. Action films depicting Arab and Islamist
terrorists reflect observed reality that accords with the knowledge and
experience of the viewing public and are not to be condemned on that account.
Accusations of a hidden government orchestration of popular sentiment lack any
proof and stem from a conspiracist agenda. To accept these criticisms would be
to demonize the U.S. government and Jews while valorizing Islamism and
terrorists. Such an agenda is deeply hostile to civilized values.

That's putting it mildly. Such criticisms
are inimical to civilized values, and intended to obviate those values.

The threat of
al-Qaida terrorist attacks is currently scaring America stiff. But you'd be
hard-pressed to find Muslim terrorists in any of today's blockbuster action
movies, which instead offer such uncontroversial bad guys as killer aliens and
abusive husbands. Why is Hollywood shying away from al-Qaida-like villains?

Movies have always
relied on politically relevant villains, from Russian spies to South African
apartheidniks to Serbian ethnic cleansers. Tom Clancy's much-loved Jack Ryan
series is the gold standard….

But in the
about-to-be-released film version of The Sum of All Fears, based loosely
on Clancy's 1991 novel of the same name, Paramount pulled a switcheroo.
Clancy's original baddies were a motley crew of unreconstructed German
Communists, a Sioux convict, and—the stumbling block—Hamas-like Palestinian
terrorists opposed to the peace process. Long before Sept. 11, these were
replaced with slickly dressed, easy-to-hate European neo-Nazis.

Though a staple of
political thrillers since the days of the Ayatollah Khomeini, Muslim terrorists
on-screen have been dwindling in numbers since the mid-1990s. Since then,
groups like the American-Arab
Anti-Discrimination Committee and the Council on American-Islamic Relations have condemned
movies like 1994's True Lies and 2000's Rules of Engagement, both
of which featured violent, fanatical Muslims….

Salam reports that CAIR was demanding that
the producers excise villainous Muslims
from the script of The Sum of All Fears even
before the script had been completed, and substitute more acceptable villains.
Which the director, Phil Alden Robinson, did, settling on – wait for it – neo-Nazis!
Robinson bowed and scraped and displayed his best face of dhimmitude in a
letter to CAIR:

"I hope you
will be reassured that I have no intention of promoting negative images of
Muslims or Arabs, and I wish you the best in your continuing efforts to combat
discrimination." Ben Affleck, the new Jack Ryan, has applauded the
decision, arguing that "the Arab terrorist thing has been done a million
times in the movies." (As opposed to the neo-Nazi thing?)

And remember, Nazis are never brown, black,
or yellow. There are always white. Except, perhaps, for President Barack Obama.
If Bill Clinton was the "first Negro president," then Obama is a
fascist – and a racist – looking for a devoted, no-questions-asked-or-permitted
following.

Salam ends his short piece with a
flip-floppy advisory:

But Americans have
demonstrated that they can separate a small, violent minority from the vast
majority of peace-loving Arabs and Muslims, and a little realism in the movies
wouldn't change that….

Salam misses the point that Muslims aren’t
necessarily Arabs (or he doesn’t stress it enough), and that Islam can't be
divorced from being a Muslim. Sooner or later, Muslims must all wage violent
jihad, or adopt a stealth policy of getting directors like Robinson to help sabotage
our "miserable house" with our own hands. Even if they're just
blocking traffic while they pray or demand halal
meals for their kids in school or in prison.

Popular films
ranging from Hollywood blockbusters to children's cartoons are depicting
"crude and exaggerated" stereotypes of Muslims and perpetuating
Islamophobia, according to a study published today. A report by the Islamic
Human Rights Commission argues that films as diverse as The Siege, a portrayal of a terrorist attack on New York starring
Denzel Washington and Bruce Willis, the Disney film Aladdin and the British comedy East is East have helped demonize
Muslims as violent, dangerous and threatening, and reinforce prejudices.

The study, titled
The British media and Muslim representation: the ideology of demonization,
argues that Hollywood has a crucial role in influencing how the public views
Muslims.

A survey conducted
as part of the research revealed that Muslims in Britain felt negative images
of their faith on the big and small screen had consequences in their daily
lives. Those interviewed "found a direct correlation between media
portrayal and their social experiences of exclusion, hatred, discrimination and
violence".

Apparently all the efforts of Hollywood to
present sympathetic and undistorted and un-invented aspects of Muslim existence
since the Middle East Quarterly article in 2001, have been for naught. Muslims
are still dissatisfied.

As well as deep
unease with big screen portrayals, the research also found a perception of
"unashamed bias" in the media against Muslims, with 62% believing the
media to be Islamophobic and 16% describing it as racist. Only 4% considered
its representation "fair". The authors call for more power for cinema
censors to be able to curtail or even decline certification of
"objectionable material", as well as more effective media watchdogs
and increased responsibility in coverage of issues involving Muslims on the
part of newspapers and television. The report, part of a series produced by the
commission - a research and campaigning body - with the backing of the Joseph
Rowntree charitable trust, is significant in that it seeks to provide a direct
voice for the Muslim community in Britain.

Well, if you ask a Muslim if he's unhappy
with how he's treated and perceived in a country he wants to adopt Sharia law,
in which all non-Muslims must defer to Muslim law and
"sensibilities," and to sanction all the brutal, primitive
"traditions" of Islam, he's likely to join the majority and answer,
Yes, British (or American) culture is Islamophobic and I'm demonized.

The Guardian article also discusses Raiders of the Lost Ark, The Siege, East is East (a British television series), Executive Decision, and House
of Sand and Fog. One film that exercised Muslims' sensitivities in Britain
and in the U.S. over negative portrayals of Muslims was Disney's Aladdin.

The cartoon Aladdin
faced protests on release in 1993 because its opening song referred to a place
where "they cut off your ear if they
don't like your face", forcing Disney executives to edit out the
lines. Today's report says: "Rather than portray the Arab culture and
Islamic religion in a positive or neutral light, the producers associate it
with harsh punishments and oppressive practices.

The report queries
why a children's cartoon describes Aladdin's homeland as "barbaric",
and notes that "good Arabs" including Aladdin are given American
accents while the rest of the cast have "exaggerated and ridiculous Arab
accents".

Not barbaric? Nothing is cut off one's face
if it isn't liked in an Islamic culture? Why, that's so Islamophobic, it's a
tissue of lies! Really? Here's
evidence to the contrary – and this is aside from the countless instances of
whipping, sentences of death for adultery, female genital mutilation, and being
treated like chattel, in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and even in
Britain and the U.S.Don’t judge: It's
not your culture. But Western culture
is evil, and must be destroyed, or made to submit to Islam. Only we Muslims (and
other Third Worlders) have a right to judge.

Finally, in the Daily Mail report, there is
this odd statement that goes against everything we know about British and
American Muslims:

There was
widespread agreement among more than 1,100 Muslims questioned by researchers
that media reports involving Muslims in Britain are "selective, biased,
stereotypical and inaccurate", with Muslims generally considered as
"others" and outsiders.

But that's
the way they want it. They want to be "separate from but equal to"
the host country – until they completely vanquish it and call it a part of the
global caliphate. This is the general Muslim attitude in Britain, Europe, and
the U.S.

Williams discusses many of the same movies
as Mandel and Salam. One deserves special attention, Roland Emmerich's 2112, another disaster film.

Similarly, during
production of the film 2012 the director Roland Emmerich had considered demolishing
the Grand Mosque in Mecca on screen but was persuaded not to. In the film,
which depicted a global apocalypse, the obliteration of the Sistine
chapel and St Peter's Basilica in the Vatican and the Christ the Redeemer
statue in Rio de Janeiro is vividly rendered while Middle Eastern landmarks are
spared. Emmerich stated, "We have to all, in the western world, think
about this. You can actually let Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would
do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have ... a fatwa... so I kind of left
it out."

Emmerich went on to
direct White House Down. The
New Republic was accurate in saying it resembled 24 re-written
by Noam Chomsky. Jamie Foxx played a souped-up action-man Obama about to bring
peace to the world by pulling American troops out of the Middle East. Evil
American patriots violently take over the White House in order to launch a
nuclear strike against Iran.

Well, who else but "evil American patriots"
would commit such a dastardly crime? Muslims? Nawh! Besides, that would be
"racial profiling," even though Islam is not a "race." But
it's de rigueur to profile whites, as
racists, as gun-clingers, as Tea Party patriots. For the Left, whites are the
default perpetrators.

And here is the Cujo Meme: It is a cinematic
analogy of how our State Department and Hollywood perceive Islam and Muslims,
perceptions mirrored in their treatment of Muslims and Islam (and also of
illegal immigrants), in film and at the negotiation tables.

Muslims are just like friendly, docile St.
Bernard dogs. But, bitten by the rabid bats of Islamophobic distortions, persecution,
isolation, lies, discrimination, and attitudes of moral superiority by
Westerners, the lovable dog goes mad and occasionally goes on a rampage against
its tormentors.

It's a tragedy that some people lose their
lives in such incidents, but, who can blame the killers? They have legitimate
grievances that have not been addressed with any sincere understanding or
compassion. The hegemony of Western "civilization" must be challenged
and dissolved if there is to be "peace." If there's violence, it's
all our fault, not that of those going on rampages. Can one really morally
judge dogs infected with rabies?

But Islam is basically a good dog. See?
It's that simple. This has been the contextual premise of our foreign policy
for a long time, and Hollywood's, as well. Muslims and Islam are not to be
toyed with or bothered. The Cujo Meme
won’t be challenged by those infected by it. They're Lost Boys (and Girls). The
only reward for engaging these people in argumentation is the venomous spittle
of their replies splattering in one's face.

The Cujo
Meme carries the death-guarantors of multiculturalism, subjectivism, political
correctness, and critical theory boiled down to an operative ideology designed
to combat independent minds and individualism and reason. The Cujo Meme is based on altruism:
Surrender your values in the name of peace; if you refuse, you are a heartless
warmonger. Or a racist. Man bites dog,
gets infected. Or, dog bites man, infecting the man.

If anyone in the State Department had any
movie-making skills, they'd produce movies that would be in sync with what Hollywood's
put out for years.

And if anyone in Hollywood had diplomatic
skills (not that the actual practitioners have many), our foreign policy is
exactly what we see today.

Gazan "photo journalists" are
adept at faking reality, just as Hollywood is when it comes to politics, and
just as our foreign policy is when dealing with reality. After all, as they say
in Hollywood and Foggy Bottom, mind creates reality, and if there's to be
"peace" in the world, our minds must be in sync.

The subject is the use of children by
terrorists in Gaza as "human shields," and the use by President
Barack Obama of children as "invasion shields" at the U.S. and
Mexican border.

Terrorists and Obama lie; children die.

Children have been used as a Trojan Horse
for all sorts of statist and collectivist initiatives: to ban smoking, to ban
guns, to ban obesity, to ban Barbie Dolls and other "dangerous" toys,
and so on. But West discusses the nearly unprecedented use of children as
weapons of war in the Middle East and
in the U.S.As she describes the
phenomena:

There’s something
darkly coincidental in the fact that the latest weapon to be deployed against
the survival instinct of both Israel and the United States is an alleged “heartlessness”
when it comes to children.

Most stories appearing in the MSM in the
U.S. and overseas are nearly maniacal in their focus on the "civilian
casualties" of "Palestinians" in Gaza as a result of Israel's
campaign against Hamas, with "personal" stories accompanied by
photographs of devastated streets and homes, sorrowful pictures of Gazan
children sitting in the rubble, and even faked photographs of supposedly dead
children, or second-hand, recycled faked photographs used in Syria.

Is Hamas's use of children as "human
shields" unprecedented? No. Hitler, when he began to run out of adults to
fight the Allies, filled his shrinking armies with adolescents and boys. Japan
counted on women and children to fight the expected invasion by Americans, with
guns, if available, with bamboo sticks, if necessary. Mao employed uncounted
children to enforce, by violence and force, his "cultural
revolution." Islamic jihadists have employed children to don suicide vests
and blow themselves up among Jews and American soldiers. So, the "human
shield" tactic isn't new.

But all that is conveniently forgotten by
the MSM. It's easy to decide whether that forgetfulness is a symptom of a
short-term memory or deliberate repression. It's deliberate repression.

Discussing an article in the London
Telegraph about Israel's alleged war crimes, West writes that the Telegraph
headline is not untypical: “Israel’s offensive in Gaza has ‘killed more
children than fighters,’ say human rights groups. Israel has been accused of
waging ‘war on the children’ of Gaza …”

No mention in the article, however, of Gaza’s
purposeful, strategic use of “human shields,” which leads to such civilian
casualties. No mention of the directive from the Hamas-controlled Ministry of
the Interior instructing civilians to remain in their homes on receipt of
advance warnings from Israel to vacate before a military attack, as the
Washington Free Beacon first reported. No mention that despite building
networks of military tunnels, Gaza authorities neglected to build any bomb
shelters for civilians! No mention of Gaza’s use of schools and other civilian
sites to store rockets and other military material, and of its use of hospitals
as Hamas command centers, and other civilian sites to store rockets and other
military material, and of its use of hospitals as Hamas command centers.

It's the children who must be spared injury
or death. That's the unspoken moral imperative. Never mind that
"Palestinian" children are taught to hate Jews and Israel and are
indoctrinated in Hamas run schools (which succeeded the PLO's and Fatah's
schools) from the moment they can read and even tote an AK47. West continues
excoriating the London Telegraph article:

No, the story is
tightly focused on Israel’s supposed “war on children.” This libel is tweeted,
screamed and news-anchor-intoned into poisonous propaganda designed to sap the
life from Israel’s survival instinct, or at least alienate her supporters. In
the stage-managed furor, the pressure on the Jews of Israel builds: Stop defending
your borders, your people and your nation. Stop everything and “save the
children of Gaza.”

Only emotion to the
point of frenzy bursts into such agitprop, but it is vital to note that the
emotion showing through is hatred for Jews, not love for children. If it were
the latter, we would see rage directed at the society that steeps its young in
the Jew-hatred of jihad and then turns them into “martyrs” – not at the Jewish
society seeking to protect its people, young and old, and, at far too much risk,
Gaza’s as well.

The MSM is largely successful in stirring
up demonstrations of hate and even a pogrom in France, comprised of mobs of
Muslims and Leftards. Truth to these people is not "optional" – it is
unwelcome because without Jews to hate, they are purposeless, empty manqués.
The Leftards among the Muslims and who are vehemently anti-Israel protesters,
are basically malign Mortimer
Snerds. And that's a "kind" appraisal of their character and
mental equipment.

Hamas, it seems, is such a great valuer of
children that it employs them to build the underground matrix of tunnels Hamas
had planned to use to launch mass
murder against the men, women, and children in settlements and towns
bordering Gaza come the Jewish holiday in September. On July 25th, Tia
Goldenberg of Business Insider ran a story about the complex, "Hamas'
Massive Network of Underground Tunnels Is a Military Game-Changer."

A network of
tunnels Palestinian militants have dug from Gaza to Israel — dubbed "lower
Gaza" by the Israeli military — is taking center stage in the latest war
between Hamas and Israel. Gaza's Hamas rulers view them as a military game
changer in its conflict with Israel. The Israeli military says the tunnels pose
a serious threat and that destroying the sophisticated underground network is a
key objective of its invasion of Gaza….

Gaza has two sets
of tunnels — those reaching Egypt and those reaching Israel.

The underground
passages to Egypt are meant to bypass a border blockade on Gaza that was
tightened by Israel and Egypt after Hamas seized the territory in 2007. The
tunnels provide an economic lifeline and are used to deliver building supplies,
fuel, consumer goods, and even cattle and cars.

In some of those
tunnels, Gaza militants received weapons and cash from their patrons abroad,
particularly Iran. Egypt has destroyed virtually all of the tunnels over the
past year, driving Hamas — which was taxing the smuggled imports — into a
severe financial crisis.

The story goes on to describe how the
tunnels are used to stock rockets, anti-tank rockets, and other arms, how they
have their own maintenance shops, and how they are interconnected with
cross-tunnels.

Hamas also moved
many of its rocket launching sites and storage sites underground, making it
more difficult for Israel to target them. Since the current round of
Israel-Hamas fighting began on July 8, Gaza militants have fired more than
2,000 rockets at Israel and repeatedly tried to sneak into Israel through
tunnels.

And just where, geographically, is this
tunnel complex located? In a treeless no-man's land between Israel and Gaza?
Think again.

Israel says Hamas
has dug dozens of tunnels, linking them to one another as well as to rocket
manufacturing sites, maintenance facilities, launch sites and command and
control centers. It says the tunnels are meant to facilitate mass attacks on
Israelis as well as kidnappings, a tactic that Hamas has used in the past….

Soldiers have
uncovered 31 tunnels in the current round of fighting, the military said
Thursday.

Palestinian
militants trying to sneak into Israel through the tunnels have been found with
tranquilizers and handcuffs, an indication that they "intended to abduct
Israelis," according to the military.

So, you would probably conjure up a picture of "resistance fighters
against the occupiers" sweating away carving out tunnels and risking their
lives in possible cave-ins and the like, in the spirit of 1963's "The Great
Escape." Wrong picture.

…Israel cites the need to stop Hamas from firing thousands of rockets at
its own children, who are being forced to live in bomb shelters, as well as the
need to eliminate the tunnels that Hamas dug into Israel in order to carry out
terror attacks against Israelis. One tunnel opening was found underneath an
Israeli kindergarten.

But who built those tunnels? The answer is Hamas, of course—using some of
the same children who are now trapped under fire in Gaza. The Institute for Palestine Studies published a detailed report on Gaza’s Tunnel Phenomenon in
the summer of 2012. It reported that tunnel construction in Gaza has resulted
in a large number of child deaths.

“At least 160 children have been killed in the tunnels, according to
Hamas officials.”

Only 160? Doubtless that figure is vastly
underestimated. Considering that Hamas places absolutely no value on human life
– most particularly not on the lives of the "Palestinians" compelled
to act as "human shields" – and taking into account Hamas's record of
lying and falsifying data, the number probably runs into more hundreds.

The author, Nicolas
Pelham, explains that Hamas uses child laborers to build their terror tunnels
because, “much as in Victorian coal mines, they are prized for their nimble
bodies”.

President Barack Obama (and please know
that I hate having to extend the courtesy of an official designation to the
nihilist scumbag) has now demanded an "unconditional ceasefire"
between Israel and Hamas – most especially for Israel to stop its
tunnel-eradicating operations – and talk, talk, talk while Hamas resupplies
itself through smuggling and more financial aid sent to it by the U.S. and
Europe. Read the whole sorry, hackles-raising story in Daniel Greenfield's
FrontPage article of July 27th, "Obama:
“Immediate, Unconditional” Surrender of Israel to Hamas." If
you are looking for a model of thuggish, unapologetic truculence, look no
further than Barack Obama.

Diana West next turns to the
"unconditional cessation" of stopping Obama's "invasion by
invitation" of thousands of Mexican and Central American
"immigrants" across the U.S.-Mexican border.

Admittedly, there
are great differences between Israel’s plight and our own. For one thing, the
Israelis are more fortunate in having a government that actually wants to
protect its people from invaders. Israel enforces its own border, having
fortified it with a fence. Now, it fights for its inviolability. Our
government, meanwhile, has left our border effectively open, even after 9/11,
and has demonstrated no interest in re-establishing national sovereignty.

That said, there
are similarities to note in the political attacks on Americans who hope to
repulse what they see as deathblows to our remnant republic coming out of the
“border crisis.” Anyone worried about the nullification of the southern border;
the accelerating usurpation of dictatorial powers by the president; the perils
to national security and public safety of open borders; the perils, also, to
the survival of our English-speaking culture rooted mainly in Europe, is
excoriated in the public square for having no “humanity.” Just like Israelis,
such “mean-spirited” Americans must hate children, too, because this is all
about “immigrant kids” in need, right? No – but that’s the dominant narrative.

Such a narrative
tells us that the only “humane” solution to the “crisis” is asylum for “the
kids” (and throw in their gang-banger brothers, felon-uncles and whoever else
is leaving those prayer rugs on the border). Talk of “rule of law,” and
“deportation” is “racist.” Talk of already overstretched American towns where
the social fabric has ripped under the stress of refugee resettlement, talk of
local public school systems broken by the extraordinary demands of supporting
impoverished, illiterate alien populations, is the talk of the “xenophobe.”

Again, it's the children. An altruist code of sacrificing one's
values for the needy, for the impoverished – for illiterate alien adults and
their children, or even for "unaccompanied" alien children – is what
is fueling the government's campaign to swamp our culture and population. To oppose
this unconstitutional program is to earn the foul smears of racism and
xenophobia.

I stress altruism here because no one else seems to want to challenge it. It's
a Christian ethic, and a Jewish one, as well. It has been compartmentalized as
the default morality by countless people who live otherwise rational,
productive lives. And it is killing this country as a tool in the hands of this
country's enemies – in and out of political office – here and overseas, who
expect Americans to do the "decent" thing and allow themselves and
their values to be sacrificed to the greater good of the Zero. They are
counting on American "decency" to make their plans work. And as their
plans are implemented, our enemies snicker on- and off-mike, because they are
vile, drooling nihilists. "Ozero," a popular nickname for Obama, fits
his nihilist policies perfectly.

"Humanity," in the parlance of
the committed altruists, is the will to sacrifice one's values.

What becomes clear
is that such “humanity” is only for the foreign-born. Such “humanity,” such
concern, is never expressed for our own people – the Americans who, far from TV
news studios and government offices, live with and support the aliens and
refugees, young and old, in many of America’s less affluent cities and
hardscrabble towns.

And perhaps that’s
another difference between the Israeli and the American predicament. Israel
still prizes the lives of its citizens very highly – not above all, as we see
in their all-too-costly efforts to avoid civilian casualties (an effort the
U.S. military also makes at similar high cost). But I can’t say the same for
America.

Obama's actions are definably treasonous,
and a violation of his oath of office.

Who are the allies of Obama's invasion by
invitation? Corrupt Central American and South American governments – and the
drug cartels. The drug cartels have burrowed probably hundreds of miles of tunnels
from Mexico into the U.S., chiefly to smuggle drugs into the country.

Tunnels
used for the transportation of drugs, linking warehouses in Tijuana, Mexico,
and the Otay Mesa area of San Diego and including rail systems, the sixth and
seventh found in the area in the last four years….

Two
drug-smuggling tunnels with rail systems stretching hundreds of yards across
the US-Mexico border were discovered by law enforcement officials, and a
73-year-old woman was charged with helping run one operation, federal
authorities said Friday.

No
contraband was found in connection with the tunnels, which linked warehouses in
Tijuana, Mexico, and the Otay Mesa area of San Diego, according to a statement
from US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Homeland Security Investigations.

The authorities know only about the tunnels
they've discovered, which are also used to smuggle people into the country. To judge
by the pictures in the preceding links, it would be easy to funnel numberless
terrorists into the country in the cartel's tunnels. There is a rumor that some cartels have sealed
deals with Hamas and other Islamic terrorist organizations to help them
smuggled jihadists into the U.S. Doubtless many Islamic terrorists have openly
crossed the border posing as Mexicans or other Latino "refugees."

West ends her column with:

Our government
doesn’t enforce our border – its basic charge – and it is frantically engaged
in a vigorous program of what I can only describe as population replacement. We
seem to be poised before an unprecedented, anarchic demographic shift bringing
large swaths of Central and South Americans into the USA – and the federal
government seems to be doing everything it can to enable the shift and make it
permanent. My late father ruefully predicted the U.S. would one day become the
northern tip of South America. I don’t know if he thought it would happen so
quickly.

Who would have
imagined, though, that the existence of Israel, surrounded by Islamic enemies
sworn to its annihilation, could in some ways seem more assured than our own?

Undoubtedly, most Americans want America's
sovereignty preserved as a distinct nation, and the border closed to the Obama-instigated
invasion of Third World foreign nationals – most of whom will choose to remain
"foreign nationals" yet expect to be bequeathed the rights and privileges
of certified Americans, as the Muslims have demanded. Most Americans, including
Latinos who underwent an arduous citizenship process (such as the patriotic
Cubans) want America to survive as America.

West's point is that before we can save any children, America must save itself
from the depredations of our own government.

Edward Cline, American Novelist

Edward Cline was born in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in 1946. After graduating from high school (in which he learned nothing of value) and a stint in the Air Force, he pursued his ambition to become a novelist. His first detective novel, First Prize, was published in 1988 by Mysterious Press/Warner Books, and his first suspense novel, Whisper the Guns, was published in 1992 by The Atlantean Press. First Prize was republished in 2009 by Perfect Crime. The Sparrowhawk series of novels set in England and Virginia in the pre-Revolutionary period has garnered critical acclaim (but not yet from the literary establishment) and universal appreciation from the reading public, including parents, teachers, students, scholars, and adult readers who believe that American history has been abandoned or is misrepresented by a government-dominated educational establishment. He is dedicated to Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in all matters.